Practically every Robert Jordan fan I've ever encountered online thinks this; they just continued reading in spite of the pace of the later books, because they were hooked and wanted to know how the bloody thing ends. :)

I've been expecting Morse code to make a comeback for text messages, because you could send and receive texts entirely by touch (if the phone vibrates in Morse code for incoming texts). Not terribly efficient perhaps but great for texting on the sly (e.g. kids in classrooms).

If it were a competitive advantage (at least in the short-term), there would be no reason for the regulation. Though that could change once everyone has gotten over the hurdle of stablishing basic privacy procedures.

You have to pay the copyright owner to make a cover of their song; they just don't have the right to refuse you or set the price (as I understand it).

Now there's an idea; can someone make a "cover" of MLK's speech? Treat it as a rap, perhaps? :)

Does music lose its copyright just because it's performed in public? How would a speech be different?

I can't be sure, but it sounds as if the businesses aren't going to be posting things to your news feed that they weren't posting already; rather they will be paying to highlight stories: move them to the top of the feed or make them bigger or something. From the article:

Featured stories you may see
        When a Page you like posts something new
        When a friend likes something (such as a Facebook Page or individual Page post)
        When a friend checks in somewhere, plays a game or uses an app

Those are things that show up in my news feed *anyway*. So I think this is a smaller change than is being suggested here.

I suspect the real reason is because Tolkien wrote fantasy, and fantasy wasn't "serious literature".

If a professor writes a textbook for a course she's teaching, it would amost be silly not to teach from it (unless it's out-of-date), since it uses her preferred notation and vocabulary, follows the order she likes to teach the class in, etc.

The nice part is when the professor beta-tests her textbook with you; that way you get the book for the price of photocopies.

For a good student, video is a supplement to lecture, not a replacement for it. Instead of spending the entire class trying to write everything down that the professor says, the good student can sit back and think about what is being said, formulate qiestions on the spot, make notes about their reactions, and then go back after the class and fill in the details from the video. Video lectures are a lot like textbooks in this regard.

And if you ask "Why should anyone come to class if they can just watch the video?" Well, it's up to the professor to provide added benefit, by making the class interactive: lots of time for questions, group exercises, etc.

They would get better reception if they raised taxes across the board, and then offered a tax break for families with immunized children. Exactly the same result, but it's phrased as a reward rather than a punishment.

Same scheme would work in other contexts too:
If Obama's health care plan gave people a tax break to people with health insurance, instead of fining people without it, then there would be no danger of a constitutional challenge.
Airlines are always aiming for the smallest list price, but given how people feel about them they could really take an alternative tack: include everything in the cost, but give discounts to people without checked luggage, people who sit in the cramped seats, people who are willing to board the plane last, etc. All of a sudden, you're the airline that is *giving* money away, instead of nickel-and-diming everybody, so that even if your prices are a little higher you will have built up goodwill.